Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#741

Post by vExLiz4r08 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

dimgl wrote: post #715

slipheen wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're…

I really don't understand why people are so afraid to let the free market decide what works and what doesn't. Government intervention very often leads to poor outcomes.

If it was for just the free market to decide, we would never have gotten rid of child labor. The government also tries to ensure that its citizenry are lifted out of poverty etc., things that free market isn't really incentivized to care for. As the op said, "As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer."

Am not sure if this situation with uber/lyft calls for this, but there definitely is a line that as a society we do not want to regress. Though, I do agree it is a very hard job to intervene because of unforeseen side effects, many times adverse, so if possible I would also prefer to avoid government intervention and let the market decide.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#742

Post by zach_garwood » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #516

slipheen wrote: post #494

Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.

Yes, a terrible solution for drivers and riders both. Back to the taxi monopolies.

Why is that the only alternative? Surely, Californians are capable enough to come up with another solution that falls within the law.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#743

Post by Retric » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #740

gamblor956 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Its a subtle distinction but one that matters legally since it means there isn't a compensation-for-wo…

> Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Hotels aren't classified as a service in the US? Or is this going along with the fiction that Airbnb is different from hotels (and not subject to regulations etc) the same way uber isn't a taxi service?

Different meaning of service. Many hosts have automated the process so they hand off entry remotely and employ an independent cleaning service. It’s hard to classify someone as an employee when some have been paid for ‘work done’ after they died.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#744

Post by ytpete » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

rileymat2 wrote: post #652

cactus2093 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly agree. I'll never understand the argument of forcing people to give up the benefits they already have as gig-economy workers and become full-time employees. Despite all the issues with the current situation, there are still a lot of obvious benefits that these workers do get like the ability to set their own hours, not having to work exactly 40 hours every week, and being able to work on multiple platforms.…

> Despite all the issues with the current situation, there are still a lot of obvious benefits that these workers do get like the ability to set their own hours, not having to work exactly 40 hours every week, and being able to work on multiple platforms. None of those are linked to being an employee or contractor.

I think they are in some cases. An employee can forbid you from working for a competitor at the same time, for example. This is usually a good thing - e.g. Apple doesn't want their Siri engineers moonlighting on the Alexa team after hours. I don't think contractors can be subject to the same sweeping restrictions.

I believe for employees paid by the hour, the employer can also dictate the number of hours per week and even the specific schedule.

Employers have much more control over their employees -- that's at the heart of the contractor-employee distinction.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#745

Post by lhh » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

vExLiz4r08 wrote: post #741

dimgl wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't understand why people are so afraid to let the free market decide what works and what doesn't. Government intervention very often leads to poor outcomes.

If it was for just the free market to decide, we would never have gotten rid of child labor. The government also tries to ensure that its citizenry are lifted out of poverty etc., things that free market isn't really incentivized to care for. As the op said, "As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer." Am not sure if this situati…

If what you care about is lifting citizenry out of poverty, free markets have the best track record by far, despite countless attempts otherwise.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#746

Post by sidlls » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #718

tfehring wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether Uber's business is providing taxi service or just providing a platform for independent drivers to connect with clients, intuitively it seems like the work drivers do is clearly within the usual course of Uber's business. What would Uber's counterargument look like here? Am I just reading it too literally?

Please first define what is "work in the usual course of business". What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business? Gig companies are market makers. By their very nature they are sitting in the middle of transactions and would be without a job without the transacting…

> What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business?

There are existing, relatively easily identified examples: tech companies hiring (on contract) workers to provide janitorial or cafeteria services, retailers hiring contracts to fix plumbing or install fixtures in their stores, landlords hiring individuals to paint homes, and the list could go on.

The "usual course of business" has a clear legal definition under California law: "the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer."

In the case of Uber, "software development" and "drivers" clearly are required in the "ordinary and regular and expected course of dealings" in their marketplace. The company's entire premise is built on connecting drivers to passengers via a software platform: they don't have a business without both of those things. One might argue over whether drivers' cars count as a "worksite", or whether remote workers working from home count as working from a "worksite" or "on premise"--but those arguments would be thin and shallow.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#747

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #713

deminature wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

It's clear to me that Prong B of AB5 is broken and it's not fixable, except by arbitrary exemptions galore. Rather than admitting this, the state seems hellbent on shoehorning this law into something politically motivated against gig companies. All the actions on the state's part points to bad faith.

Or maybe the state is acting in good faith on behalf of gig workers, and it's the gig companies tying themselves into knots trying to avoid legislation who are acting in bad faith?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#748

Post by e12e » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

lhh wrote: post #711

enraged_camel wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't agree that the government should be deeming any type of agreement that adults voluntarily enter into as illegal. You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the ag…

> You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the agreement). If someone wants to sell themselves into slavery, I say let them (though perhaps there should be an exception if…

> I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.

This seems to overlook the long fights for Sundays off, Saturdays off, a 60 hour work week, a 40 hour work week and so on. When options on one side is "be evicted from home, leave family to starve" and the other side is "postpone additional revenue until someone more desperate signs up" - you have to consider what "voluntary" means.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#749

Post by manigandham » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #608

julienb_sea wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to point out, it is possible for government to over-regulate a business model out of financial viability. Employees can and often will push for unreasonable compensation or protections. You may argue the model can regress to essentially taxis. But realize that taxis work due to artificial supply side restrictions generally using a medallion system and strict limits on numbers. This is fundamentally different f…

I do agree, it’s not an easy problem. But I think in the case of Uber it’s beyond debate that drivers, as an overall class, are not better off “having the freedom” to work under Uber’s (or other firm’s) poor conditions. I’d say the same thing of Amazon warehouse workers too. The conditions of these employment agreements should become legally not possible, so that workers don’t become effectively indentured servants t…

99.9% of Uber drivers would debate you on that. Flexibility to work when and where they wanted was the paramount reason for most of them to do this work.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#750

Post by e12e » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #743

e12e wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Hotels aren't classified as a service in the US? Or is this going along with the fiction that Airbnb is different from hotels (and not subject to regulations etc) the same way uber isn't a taxi service?

Different meaning of service. Many hosts have automated the process so they hand off entry remotely and employ an independent cleaning service. It’s hard to classify someone as an employee when some have been paid for ‘work done’ after they died.

Well, I'm pretty sure receptionists and booking (sales) people at hotels are service workers too - not just the maids. But interesting point about there being sub-contractors all the way down re: this thread (who is an employee).